SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2024
Home and Community-Based Services: A Systematic Review and Evidence Map.
Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rural-Urban Variability in Home and Community-Based Service Use Among Veterans.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Article
- Medicaid home and community based services are vital for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A descriptive study of service use among all adult enrollees, 2022.Disability and health journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany adults aged 60 years or older have functional limitations and require home and community-based services (HCBS) to support their independence and delay the transition to an institutionalized setting. This systematic review provides an evidence map of the existing literature on HCBS identifying evidence gaps for policy and research.
methodsA comprehensive literature search of multiple databases including Medline, Embase, and Scopus was conducted through December 7, 2023. Interviews with various stakeholders were conducted to solicit additional perspectives. Narrative and thematic synthesis was conducted to evaluate HCBS in terms of populations, interventions, outcomes, person-centeredness, and relevant quality measures.
resultsWe identified 27 primary studies and 29 quality measures. Populations of HCBS studies can be categorized as those with functional disability, cognitive impairment, high-risk/frail conditions, and disease-specific conditions (Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and post-stroke). HCBS interventions targeted optimization of person-centered planning, nonpharmacological approaches for dementia care, physical rehabilitation, self-directed home care, geriatric resources for practical support at home, and interdisciplinary care coordination for high-risk conditions. Person-centered planning and self-direction of HCBS services were not explicitly described in many studies and very few studies focused on addressing health-related social needs, whereas the majority reported primary clinical outcomes. Numerous quality measures exist for HCBS, some of which were validated, addressed multiple person-centered domains, and may apply across various conditions and populations. Key challenges in the literature on HCBS include limited number of randomized trials, inadequate descriptions of interventions to determine person-centeredness, limited information on facilitators and barriers, and limited information on workforce challenges in recruiting, retaining, and training personnel delivering HCBS. DISCUSSION: This evidence map describes the current state of HCBS and identifies evidence gaps for future research and policy decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.